Slashdot Mirror
US Presidential Debate #2 Tonight: Discuss Here
The second U.S. Presidential debate kicks off in about a half-hour (9PM ET, 6PM PT, 0100 UTC) from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney will take questions from an audience of allegedly undecided voters. A live stream of the event will be available from a number of sources (C-SPAN, CNN, ABC, and PBS), and it will be broadcast nationally on the major networks. The flash-less and television-less can use rtmpdump to catch the debate from C-SPAN. It won't preempt the more important telecasts, like playoff baseball. Candidates from smaller parties again went uninvited (e.g. Gary Johnson from the Libertarians, Jill Stein from the Greens, Virgil Goode from the Constitution Party, and Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party). In fact, Jill Stein was arrested for attempting to enter without credentials (her side of the story). Assuming she's out of jail by Thursday, she and Gary Johnson will be participating in an online debate hosted by IVN.us. While tonight's debate is in progress, Politifact will be fact-checking the candidates in real-time (while CNN has demonstrated their journalistic capabilities with a debate drinking game). Feel free to weigh in with your commentary on the debate below — it would be helpful to provide timestamps or other context when referring to particular statements. As before, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight. If either of the candidates spontaneously concedes the election or catches fire, we'll do our best to update you.
Posted this last debate but, still relevant. Logical Fallacy Bingo
After watching the first debate, I couldn't explain either candidates platform. Cut taxes...increase tax revenue...doesn't make sense to me. I feel really stupid after watching these but I'm mostly just marking it down as both of them having muddled platforms...because after all....how could I be stupid. Impossible. I think this happens mostly because they draw their own conclusions about what effect their policies will or will not have. They rarely explain their logic, and even when they do, it doesn't make sense to me. I usually draw a different conclusion.
I'm looking forward to seeing both candidates clarify their platforms tonight.
This is do or die. And the fact of the matter is, Socialism just can't stand up face-to-face against pure free market capitalism. It sounds good in speeches, but when you are called out on facts, you stumble. And when Mitt Romney shines the harsh light of good-ole American capitalism on Obama's failed policies ... well, let's just say this could be even more lopsided than last time. After tonight - Game Over.
This is a farce. 2 sides of the same exact coin are arguing about who is made of a purer metal. Give a fucking break, if you have half a brain cell for each 10 people, you still should be able to see through this charade.
Gary Johnson 2012.
You can't handle the truth.
As before, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Look for Obama to come out swinging towards the end of this 3 round battle. Romney ain't no Joe Frazier. IMNSHO, he's a fucking black hole.
ALCS, baby. Screw the criminals on TV looking pretty and arguing over who is the bigger fuck-up ... I have important things to watch.
I hate when commentators discuss the live Tweet counts as a way to gauge "who is winning".
take that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU
Romney lies.
number of sources (C-SPAN, CNN, ABC, and PBS)
You forgot Fox News which has by far the largest number of viewers. I'm shocked at the omission.
an ill wind that blows no good
will mitt romney flip flip on health care yet again
You just can't trust him on that.
What are your feelings on the merits or shortcomings of the theory of evolution, and what proof have you seen that supports your viewpoint?
At least it is right now at 9:00 pm..
Obama has nothing positive to offer
What power does the President have to actually enact any tax related policy they have on their platform? Surely for the most part they a legislative rather than executive issues?
The American system seems very weird. Well, on paper it seems reasonable but in practice it seems to operate in a way that ensures nothing 'difficult' gets done and that everybody has someone else to blame for the inaction.
Meanwhile.......
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The debate isn't being showed across the pond.
The world barely recovered from letting Microsoft off the hook and hasn't recovered from the War on Terror yet so some of us would like to watch.
That is the question that the great majority of Americans need to be asking themselves
in the privacy of their own minds.
Most people get health insurance as part of a package of benefits from their employer.
If you lose the job, you lose the health insurance coverage.
Romney will let you die in the gutter. Obama is a genuinely decent man and he wants to make
sure that no one will suffer a lack of health care because of their personal circumstances.
If you think that you could never be "one of those people", you don't have much life experience,
because for most of us, the shit can hit the fan any time.
It sounds like he actually cares about people. It's very grating.
http://gigaom.com/video/second-presidential-debate-live-stream/
Save some money for a rainy day asshole. I have no sympathy for the people that run out every month, cash their paycheck and spend every last cent until it's gone and then complain about having no money.
And here is a prediction:
there will be no question about inflation, there will be no question about the trade deficit.
A poll was conducted by Fox "News", still, their numbers show the following:
People worried about rising prices: 41%
People worried about unemployment: 24%
People worried about taxes: 19%
People worried about housing market: 7%
If this poll is anywhere near correct, then twice as many people are worried about rising prices (resulting at the minimum from inflation) than there are people worried about unemployment or taxes. 6 times more people worry about rising prices than about housing market.
Yet the Fed's policies are all aimed at 'curbing deflation' and creating inflation by buying more and more mortgages (40 billion a month now or more forever, "until the economy gets better").
And really, if the rising prices is such a good thing in housing (according to the Fed), why is it then something that worries so many people?
Of-course people are worried about rising prices in energy, food and other things that they have to buy all the time. All the stupid 'economic data' that the news like to show right now display 'rise in consumer confidence' based on people spending more.
Nobody in the news is paying attention that people are spending more to buy the same or even less, because things cost more. Is inflation a problem? Not if the Fed has to say anything about it, yet 41% of people think rising prices are a problem.
You can't handle the truth.
I've love to see someone challenge Romney on the concept of tax cuts for the rich leading to Job creation.
A great example was this banned TED talk released by venture capitalist Nick Hanauer where he put in really simple, easy-to-understand terms the concept that giving money back to middle class families means they will buy more stuff leading to more job creation than giving tax breaks to a millionaire. This comes from the first non-family investor in Amazon by the way.
Considering this is Romney's whole ideology, I'd love to see an audience member nail him and get an on-record comment on the subject.
so let's sick kids be locked out is OK with you?
As that is the Romney plan when he kills the pre-existing condition law.
I wonder what the Vegas odds are on whether Obama or Romney will tell more lies.
CPI numbers rose in September by 6/10 of 1% (by government numbers), same as a month before.
Annualize and compound it, that's just under 8%, and that's excluding all the things that people actually really need to buy almost every day (food, energy).
That's inflation, will there be a question on this?
MY OTHER COMMENTS
http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cl-regional-debt.png
And, do you think EITHER of these losers work against this?
No fu@*ing way.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Mitt Romney: going after birds, big and small.
a world in progress...
Its either trust Mitt or submit to the Mau-Mau's death panels.
an ill wind that blows no good
Is it just me, or does the president seem to have a fake accent. Some sort of a fake drawl?
This is truly the greatest comeback ever by the nation's number one comeback kid! His message and delivery were perfectly spot on as he pointed the way forward for America.
Romney on the other hand spewed hate-filled racists lies in a robotic non-human manner and sucks. Did I mention that he hates women too?
This is Andrea Mitchell, reporting for NBC news.
(Oh wait... the debate isn't actually over yet? Well, this is how we *want* it to turn out so screw the "facts" of what the candidates supposedly "said", that's just racist claptrap for those ignorant Christians).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
You're lying.
No, You're lying.
No, You're lying.
Presidential debates are useless in modernity.
Anyone who can't see this is mentally defective.
Romney has been perfectly clear about how his tax plan works. You can read all of the details here: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
there is jail / prison care where under the us constitution they must give you health care.
And the ER must take care of you.
$12,000 a year for health insurance if unemployed. So my rainy day fund for 1 year just to live is somewhere in the neighborhood $18,000-$20,000 on an average salary of $35,000. So you're right. Out of the $35,000 I made before getting laid off I should have a surplus of $17,000 a year. $5,000 for room and board and $12,000 for health insurance. Heck, why work more than 1 year on and one year off? But in the richest nation and self professed best and coolest nation in the world, the US still has people living on the street? Impressive attitude asshole.
Much as he comes off as the nicer guy, I can't see how Obama can win on Nov. 6. The best that can be said about Obama is that he didn't plunge the US in another needless war. He'll probably go down as a transition president, muich like Jimmy Carter in between the Watergate scandal (Gerald Ford doesn't count) and the rise of Ronald Reaganomics. For better or worse, however, Romney is no Reagan.
You're a liar! No, you're a liar! No, *you* are! Yakity yak, blah, blah, blah, argue, argue, talk over eachother ...
No actual substance, just sound bites and hot air.
T'was EVER THUS:
Secret Society
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
We can only hope.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It is so nice to hear the middle class does not need to pay tax on our non existent saving!
He's a fucking liar. He just said it and Obama is about to put the prick in his place.
Can somebody help me with this question I have had regarding the Romney Tax Plan?
From what I understand, Romney's tax plan is to drop everyone's marginal tax rate and then eliminate deductions, credits etc.
In his debate speech just now, he noted that the top 5% of people are still going to be paying 60% of the taxes.
If his plan is revenue neutral (meaning they still take in as much as they currently do) doesn't that mean, the lower 95% are still paying the same 40% of taxes that they are paying now? If so... how does that tax plan change anything? Whether you say it's through deductions or just a lower rate everyone is still paying the same amount of taxes no?
Thanks again for the rtmpdump command syntax -- I'm only watching/listening because of it; because I like the method. Now, if you could show me how to do this with Jerry Springer, I'm game for some more honest, dynamic and civilized debate, with prettier scenery and more credible opponents.
PS: Dear Anonymous*, if you can manage to hack 30 seconds for Ron Paul (or anyone else with a measure of consistency/integrity), many Americans starving for common-sense would be very grateful.
Sincerely,
Terrified
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
By that logic your completely wrong, who spends more someone in the middle class or in the top 5 percent. That top 5 percent pays 60 percent of all income taxes.
The best part about this shit is that Republicans apparently really believe that Bob Jobcreator will refuse to make $500,000 if he can't make $1,000,000. No, he'd rather do nothing at all and get $0 and let someone else who isn't allergic to paying taxes have the $500,000. Yessirree, welfare is so awesome Bob would rather live on foodstamps and sleep in the slums than work half a million dollars because he can't keep all of it.
Romney mentioned no taxes to be paid for mutual funds and capital gains tax. Well guess what? Most middle class folks who have money invested in mutual funds and other investments have small actually irrelevant gains to pay taxes on
He didn't even finish the term he was elected to. He bailed out to go run for president in 2008. He's nothing but an opportunist. He's a prick.
Do they actually differ at all?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What is wrong with diversity in the audience? Who are these people? Are they representative of which town?
How is it Obama can't give a straight answer but calls Romney out for not having a plan when he isn't the president?
Both candidates have the same platform: make sure corporations continue to run the show, make sure the people being exploited continue to believe the system is working for them, and make sure the people being exploited are too distracted with minute details about issues that do not really affect them (gay marriage) to question policies that really do affect them (the war on drugs).
Don't listen to what the candidates major party say, it is just a side show. Look at what they actually did in the past, and look at what they don't say. Has Mitt Romney criticized Obama for failing to demand that the TSA actually follow the law (seriously, how much more effective of a criticism can one make than pointing out their opponent's failure to uphold the law while serving in the highest political office in the country)? The debates are a waste of your time, designed to reinforce the view the the Democrats are "liberals" and the Republicans are "conservative" (both parties, in fact, are fascist, hawkish, and pro-corporate).
Palm trees and 8
how many middle class folks will lose the ability to do a long form by getting rid of the deductions they presently can take? Those reductions will not affect the 2% at the top, they still continue to take those deductions, everyone else goes to the standard deduction due to not cutting it. Not good.
$1k per month for health insurance? Jeezus, what kind of policy is that? I'm in my 40's and BCBS quoted me about $250 per month (actually slightly less) for a moderate ($2,500 deductible) policy with prescription coverage. I could cover that with unemployment insurance, and not even have to touch the $30k plus in my savings. Do you have an artificial heart or something?
More politics!!!
I sure am eager for November 7 to come around. Meanwhile, can I just forward all the robocalls I'm getting to this discussion?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Democrats: Keynesian stimulus designed to jump start the economy assuming it will be enough for the public to start buying things and hiring workers.
Republicans: Tax cuts so business can hire more people.
The Democrats' stimulus won't work because the middle class has less income than before meaning they can't/shouldn't be buying things to stimulate the economy. The Republicans' tax cuts won't work because businesses won't hire people unless sales go up. Sales won't go up because the middle class has less income than before.
If Romney wins. Women get back in the kitchen and start breeding. That's all he thinks women can do.
It's like they're very passionate about a bunch of things that I simply don't give a shit about.
Fascinating.
The moderator, Candy Somebody, is so obviously in Obama's pocket. Can not believe how she is guiding him through the questions!! Sickening.
Nick Hanauer interview (part 1, part 2) with Peter Schiff was THE reason why I bought a premium subscription to Schiff radio show.
Let me be absolutely clear on this: Nick Hanauer is the kind of an idiot that can make money while being absolutely ignorant on economics.
Consumers do NOT build businesses, businessmen build businesses. Consumption is the trivial consequence of production, and just like the case with every other business and product, the product has to be invented and built first and there is absolutely no clear way to know that the product or a business will be a success.
Growing an existing successful and profitable business into a more profitable one is much simpler than starting a new business with a new idea and an unproven track record. The only thing that can be said about demand is that if a business is already successful and profitable, then there is at least money to attempt and expand capacity.
Nick Hanauer is an absolute moron when it comes to economics, he thinks that the consumer appears first. As if the people appeared BEFORE the Sun and the Earth was here.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Not American / Debates are just that / All politicians talk more and deliver less - PICK ONE
This year I decided to make a better attempt to understand "politics" and watch the debates.
What I see is one candidate who seems to be holding back - & I'm not sure if he is trying to keep from losing his composure. But I want more straight-forward answers, without deviating off the subject.
And then there's the other candidate who continuously breaks protocol & won't abide the guidelines of the debates. What's up with this continued INTERRUPTION??? This "I must have the last say so" antic bothers me. I see a person who won't listen to the masses, but instead will make decisions without any regard as to whether there is another way.... a better way.
I'm at the point where there should be a third candidate - who'd I consider without ever hearing him say a word. The more these candidates open their mouths, the more discouraged I become.
So far, outside of agreeing and disagreeing with things both candidates are saying, is - Ms. Moderator, This is not all about you. As much as you want it to be, it isn't. Back off, MODERATE and let us hear the opinions of the candidates instead of your voice saying what they should be saying. This debate will be most noted for how poor the moderating was done by the showboat moderator, not in how much information was provided from each candidate. So far, the moderator has made this a nearly useless debate.
Absolutely brilliant.
It would be ... good if Obama could ... learn to Punctuate ...
Periods and paragraph breaks do not belong in the middle of a sentence. People talk about how poor Bush's speaking ability was but quite frankly, Obama is much hard to listen to with his constant pausing to catch his thoughts mid-sentence.
ROMNEY Is rude as hell, He has no manners, he interrupts the president. He needs to learn manners
so let's sick kids be locked out is OK with you?
As that is the Romney plan when he kills the pre-existing condition law.
I thought that was the American way? you can't afford it well f*^k you, thats true capitalism, none of that socialist crap..
...to earn my vote...That is the question that needs to be asked over an over.
I think at this point I would vote for any candidate who would just answer the questions that are being asked...or at least address them tengentially.
There also needs to be a buzzer or something to shut them up whenever they want to discuss their opponent's plans, i.e., put words in their opponent's mouth.
Talk about following his Party line. If he said rewriting the ethanol rules and re-evaluating it than sure but those current laws requiring ethanol mixtures in fuel have food based corn requirements. Clearly another farm subsidy.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The best part about this shit is that Republicans apparently really believe that Bob Jobcreator will refuse to make $500,000 if he can't make $1,000,000. No, he'd rather do nothing at all and get $0 and let someone else who isn't allergic to paying taxes have the $500,000. Yessirree, welfare is so awesome Bob would rather live on foodstamps and sleep in the slums than work half a million dollars because he can't keep all of it.
It also assumes rich people will use the money they don't pay in taxes for something constructive, rather than sitting on it, gambling it on the stock market, or slipping it off to another country to avoid paying tax on it at all.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...who will work against this:
http://cdn.theweedblog.com/wp-content/uploads//Raid-21.jpg
Palm trees and 8
Obama for Life. Obama for a better Roman Imperium!
$1k per month for health insurance? Jeezus, what kind of policy is that? I'm in my 40's and BCBS quoted me about $250 per month (actually slightly less) for a moderate ($2,500 deductible) policy with prescription coverage. I could cover that with unemployment insurance, and not even have to touch the $30k plus in my savings. Do you have an artificial heart or something?
Anthem Blue Cross health insurance for a 50 year old male:
$288/mo = $3500/year
$6000/year deductible
$3500 out of pocket maximum (after deductible)
As long as you don't need healthcare services, it's "only" $3500/year. But if you need to use your insurance, then you could be paying $9500 just to get to the deductible where insurance starts paying... then you could be paying up to $12,500 for the year.
What is up with Fmr Governor Romney talking about the pipeline from Candada when the oil companies would not sign the agreement allowing it which required them to keep the resulting fuel inside the US? For months and months now they have been over processing oil in the US and shipping _excess_ out to South America and Europe and thereby lowering the US _supply_ and keeping prices high.
Maybe Fmr Governor Romney should talk about how many jobs were created by the Gulf oil well disaster and cleanup and use it in his plan.
Romney looks tired.
The only democracy in the world where sociopaths have their own party is the United States. Even better, that party has groups within it that variously argue both Jesus and the Founding Fathers approved of sociopathic policies.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Seriously?? Obama is so full of it!!! He knows that he denied the Canada to Cushing, Ok to refineries to the gulf pipeline because that WOULD make jobs & make USA more energy independent!!!
Also Obama wants to say was raised by single mom---No, he was sent to his grandparents!
He says don't tolerate discrimination --but why then, is Obama endorsing black organizations & Muslim groups over the general public!-- yes I think there is white discrimination today!!
I love me some Fark. But Slashdot's server is still up, and Fark's is ... farked!
I guess you missed that part of the post you were replying to. Who you choose on election day does matter, which is why I vote third party.
Palm trees and 8
giving money back to middle class families means they will buy more stuff leading to more job creation
You need to do both.
Middel class people need jobs and better pay, so as you say they can afford to spend more.
To get more jobs though you have to remove some risk from businesses. Currently there have been a LOT of new regulations piled atop all kinds of businesses, and they will not hire also when they are worried about a debt overhang. Anyone can see that a ton of new taxes are inevitable, and that if the federal government cannot get spending under control ALSO then taxes are going to go sky high in the not too distant future. It's a really bad idea to hire into an environment like that when each employee is going to mean a ton federal taxes to pay.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wow! That is the most definitive documentation of Romney's plan I have seen yet.
The amount of effort it took to craft such as plan must have been astronomical.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Which evil wizard do you want to ravage the kingdom?
I want the one where the press reports which areas of the kingdom are being ravaged, not the invisible wizard that ravages without notice.
Just look at the moderation of this and other debates. The mainstream press is liberal almost to a (wo)man, and it has showed in the debates. The moderators are literally feeding the democrats talking points, while sneering at Republican candidates.
The press has ignored all kinds of major debacles from the Democratic administration that it is plain to see would have been pinned firmly, with a repeating nail gun, to the chest of a Republican president. From the invasion of Libya which really was war for oil (otherwise we'd be in Syria too since the same reasons we supposedly went into Libya apply only moreso), to sending guns to mexican drug lords (operation Gunwalker) to terrorist attack killing our ambassador in Libya, the press is trying to stay as quiet as possible instead of looking under rugs and in closets.
Look at how many reporters were way in out Alaska looking for anything on Palin, compare to zero interest in Biden and what he has been up to over the years.
The one way democracy really works is if you have a body of people watching over the politicians. That's not been happening for four years now and we are all the worse for it.
If you are undecided at all on any candidate for any office, just ask - which person will be under greater scrutiny if elected?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is, Romney's tax plans..
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
A smart non-partisan FBriend of mine wrote this
Business Doesn’t Create Jobs
The misconception everyone seems to have is that businesses create jobs. That’s true in the sense that business provides the mechanism for people to contribute to making goods and services. But businesses don’t create jobs.
A good businessperson tries to reduce costs and run as efficiently as possible. That’s why automation so revolutionized the world—we could do more work with far fewer people. That’s why businesses pursue productivity, so they can scale up their production faster than they need to scale up their headcount.
Any businessperson who is acting in the interest of the bottom line should be trying to slow job growth or actively shed jobs within their company.
Jobs are created when a business experiences so much demand that it has no choice except to hire more people to cope with the demand. The demand drives the business to create more jobs.
Someone with the business experience of presiding over a growing business does not know how to create jobs; they know how to create demand for their specific products and services. This is a great skill for growing an individual business.
Growing a business isn’t the same as growing an economy. As Apple grows demand for its products, it grows demand in no small part by taking business away from its competitors. Apple does well, but Microsoft does less well that it otherwise would. Getting one business to do better is not the same thing at all as growing an overall economy so everyone does better.
http://www.steverrobbins.com/blog/2012/10/business-finance-and-jobs/
Unfortunately $1k a month is pretty standard from what I understand. I've been told my employer pays about $1,000 per month per employee. A family member is on the board of a small local telephone company and he's said that they pay $1,200 per employee. I think my employer was paying close to $1,500 a month per employee before they switched us over to a high deductible plan ($1,000 a year). They're nice enough to give us the deductible in a HSA account though each year. Even on the old plan we had pretty high co-pay rates, even for "in network" providers.
insert lame partisan comment here
captcha agrieve
Person: My question is Blah.
Candidate A: Blah Blah Blah!
Candidate B: Candidate A is a big fat liar!
Candidate A: No I'm not! B is the liar!
Candidate B: Nuh uh!
Moderator: Sigh. Okay, next que-
Candidate A: BLAH BLAH!
Moderator: Yes, but the time is o-
Candidate B: BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
Moderate: I hate my life, and I hate you both, why am I here?
Anyone else get a blackout while Romney was discussing the executive order preventing further investigation of Fast and Furious? Just as I was getting interested...
Absolutely brilliant.
I suspect some of these (presumably) low-budget satires end up having more influence than most big-budget campaign ads.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You can say that Romney's plan is vague, but I don't think you can claim that's it's the "dead-on-arrival" plan that Democrats would like people to believe. Consider another reading that takes into account other factors: http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf
In any case, a calculated vagueness is the part of the essence of challengers, and were you to scrutinize past candidates with the same lens with which you scrutinize Romney you'd find that same frustrating vagueness.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I liked this debate format far better that I did the first one. I also felt President Obama was much more aggressive, and I think his performance was much better overall. I've been following this poll on who won the second debate overall. What do you guys think? http://www.mapyourvote.com/Poll/Debate-Two-Winner/?rf=2
Romney isn't going to let anyone 'challenge' the conventional garbage that the Republicans have championed since they became the party of privilege. Money generally seeks its biggest return, regardless of where it is to be found. That's why Romney has so much of his wealth invested outside the U.S. and its why the largest corporations, banks and hedge funds keep so much of their money offshore until they can get Congress to give them a tax break to 'repatriate' it.
There's no obligation to create jobs here if they can be operated more cheaply outside our border. If there was, the Bush Tax Cuts would have cushioned the blow that bad domestic tax policies and the conservative repeal of bank regulation have wrought on the wealth of the middle class. The failure to adequately regulate derivatives like colateralized debt obligations (CDO's) and credit default swaps is also a conservative, market fundamentalist ideal, and they nearly brought the world's banking system to a halt, not just ours.
Romney represents the worst that Republicans bring to politics. It's the politics of failing classical right-wing economics where responsibility to people, the environment and freedom all take a back seat to profit, hereditary advantage and corporate greed.
the debates everything is pretty much stupid about getting the economy up again its simple kill NAFTA raise import tax goods like crazy to the point were its cheaper to build in America than china or equal or start vamping up taxes and head in that direction over a given period of time then you can pay off the debt and create jobs the same time. You keep the flow of cash in America. Face it NAFTA just sent the jobs over seas and didn't improve standers of living just made corporations pocket more cash.
Two statements from Romney: "I will create 12 million new jobs during my first term." "Government doesn't create jobs."
The President's self-described record: creation of 5 million new jobs since the end of the recession.
If you look at employment growth at Calculated Risk: http://www.crgraphs.com/ this recovery looks a lot like the last 2 recoveries under very different administrations. I didn't hear anything about how the country gets back to recovery rates typical of post-WWII recessions prior to 1990. Does anyone think any candidate's proposal fix the problem?
Am I the only one that saw Will Ferrel rippin' the Ragin' Cajun every time Candy cut in?
Seriously, that's how I feel about all this.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/romneys-tax-plan-adds-up-to-a-middle-class-tax-hike/?source=20121015_rtp
Romney won on economic and foreign policy issues. Obama won on social issues.
I'm in my 40's. I see the numbers for my large employers 4 available plans. ~1k/month sounds about right from what I've seen.
Air support and soldiers on the ground advising rebel forces and helping to call in air strikes...
A military action by any other name is just as significant, and the fact remains that whatever term you use for what we did in Libya is not being done in Syria where the same reasoning applies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Obama lied about what se said in a speech, and the moderator interrupted Romney to make the same claim!
The speech contents are here (click on "read the transcript"on the right side); the word "terror" was never mentioned nor was it claimed terrorism was the cause of the attack.
If you are tired of politicians that lie, perhaps you should not vote for one where the media willingly repeat and try to support the lies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only problem is doing that is very expensive. It sounds great when you first think of it but in the end the math does not work out.
Without health care coverage you have lower worker productivity and higher costs. You also have higher costs from crime related to people trying to get the money to cover their healthcare. You also have higher costs at the emergency room and if the person dies or is permanently damaged you lose a large investment society has already made in the person.
It is cheaper overall to cover everyone and continue to invest in technology to cure diseases over treatment. It is not socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative etc it is just a pure cost vs expense argument that makes good financial sense.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Your employer is nice. Mine pays 50%.
I get about $270 taken out each month for my employee-only insurance with $1000 deductible. If I ever get married and have kids, they can work for their own.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a bug. Running this code in your JS console should resolve the problem.
$('button').unbind();
$('button').click( function() {
window.location='http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax';
} );
...but at least he's being honest about what he wants to do.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
In America, one serious illness in the family will destroy your finances unless you're very rich or have good insurance. I can see why Romney could think of having enough money saved to get him through a rough patch but for most of us, a medical problem is a financial disaster of epic proportions without insurance. Besides, where is it written that young people who have never had time enough to save up for the cost of an expensive medical problem don't get sick?
I don't know what's funnier, the original link I posted or the fact that Romney's real link you posted is no more useful in understanding the real numbers.
They need a mechanism like a chess clock . When a candidate presses his button, his microphone turns off and his opponent's clock starts running. If a candidate runs out of time on his clock, then he can't talk for the rest of the debate.
-Dave
We pay for it somehow.. It might not be noticed, but we do. The money has to come from somewhere.. in lower wages, higher costs in goods/services, higher taxes..
Well firstly it isn't a tax cut, the money comes from somebody at sometime, so its a tax delay, credit or a tax shift to other people. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE MONEY.
I notice that Republicans talk about tax cuts for the middle class, while actually meaning tax cuts for the super rich. So that leaves the poor 47% to pick up the tab later presumably. That seems to be what Romney was saying, that the 47% would pay the cost of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
If you give rich people a tax cut, what they heck more CAN they spend it on? Not more food? More XBoxes? More cars per person? What? All that happens is they compete to pay more for the same stuff, in the Bush era that was houses. So they pumped up the price of housing to an insane amount, inflating their mortgages to match. They'll buy French perfumes at $100 a bottle instead of mass market stuff at $10, Brut Champagne, instead of sparkling wine. Foreign holidays instead of domestic ones.
Then the slightest little problem and they can't pay these inflated mortgages anymore -> crash.
The smart ones, they build their nest egg, buying unproductive but safe assets. Again you've wasted the money in dead assets.
The dodgy ones, well they ship it offshore to tax havens and lock it up in foreign assets. Cheney did this when the US was inflating its currency. I've no doubt Romney is hiding something similar by hiding his tax returns. This is not productive use either, it just takes the money of the US.
I saw Dumb and Dumber a long time ago. This debate feels like the same $#it different day.
Why does anyone give a flying fuck what Romney or Obama plan on doing. They're the executive. Better to ask all those busy little Congresscritters seeking (re)election what their plans are.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is what's hilarious. The presidential candidates discuss issues that the president has no fucking power to change... like taxes. Has any president ever changed taxes? No... Congress does that and then the president vetoes it or signs it. That's it. It doesn't matter what Romney or Obama think the tax code should be because they don't get a vote. If either of them were real men they'd make some commitments like "I'm going to veto every bill that crosses my desk that doesn't also have provisions to pay for itself" That's a fucking argument I could vote for. But no... we're going to listen to them make idiotic arguments like "The rich should pay their fair share" What the fuck does that even mean? or "Everyones taxes should be lower" Ok yea, we can all agree with that... but you also want to increase spending? Jeasus H Christ! How the fuck can you people continue to vote for these idiots?
Because "executive orders" have basically made declarations of war obsolete, and the President gets to decide who he wants to bomb or invade at will.
And second, these days those Congresscritters basically flock to whatever peacock in their party shines brightest.
Finally, have you ever heard of the "veto"?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT ELECT ROMNEY
ALSO FOR THE HATE OF GOD OR APATHY TOWARDS GOD OR WHATEVER
He has ruined this state. He is the worst governor we've had as long as I've lived here. It is official Mormon doctrine to use your beliefs in your politics. As a theologian and pastor-to-be I do not say these words likely: he is a crazy ****-twat that will ruin the country.
This is not a matter of Republican vs. Democrat. This is not a matter of liking Obama. I voted for Obama but I would rather vote for George Bush Jr. again than Romney.
Romney's leadership style is to do what he wants, how he wants it, without taking the input even of his cabinet of advisors. He does this based on what he believes God tells him to do, and what the Mormon church tells him to. He is ruthless, stupid, and doesn't even understand the concept of the separation of church and state.
As a resident of Massachusetts,
and a theologian well versed in Mormons and their politics,
PLEASE PLEASE
DO NOT ELECT ROMNEY
If you feel you can't vote for Obama because you hate him, just don't vote. Seriously. Stay home.
Our online Moncler Outlet is very suitable for you to have a fashion look. Moncler outlet online store offers the newest products with unbelievable prices. 2013 New Moncler From moncler outlet is latest popular,unique style and very fashionable. Welcome to moncler outlet online store,there are so many surprises waiting for you! Moncler New 2013 with the 2013 new designs in innovative style will create a different and perfect winter for you. Moncler Jackets UK has released a lot of different styles of products can very well reflected you slender body to make you look more sexy. About Moncler New 2013 tan is designed to offer you a classy,beautiful look and protect you against cold wind at the same time. These durable Moncler Outlet UK can be used during the winter and spring. Their water-resistant shells made of nylon are made to withstand wind and snow. Its breathable exterior is heavily insulated and keeps wearers covered in cold and wet conditions. Pockets are deep and have polyurethane zippers for additional resistance to the cold weather. Moncler UK online store sale cheap vest,vest,coats and more other products. Moncler has become more and more popular,Cheap vests from Moncler Jackets Outlet online store. you will fall in love with the comfortable feeling!
If tax cut is applied to the taxes the middle class mostly pays, would that benefit the economy more? Republican tax cut sounds like it targets only corporate and investment related taxes. Democrat stimulus sounds like giving money to those who have already lost in the free market. Perhaps there needs to be a more powerful tax payers association lobbying for income tax moderation to encourage employment and that little income boost.
Actually, corp. profits are very high right. However, those are world-wide profits, and so they come from expanding business in India and China, not here in the US. The cost of labor, materials and regulations in the US is too high for most companies to make large investments here. Also, small businesses find that banks aren't lending to them much right now.
Socialism has a history of "shedding" it's people to cut costs due to economic failures and "backwardness" of socialist/communist style governments.
Collectivizing agriculture creating a distribution nightmare, developing fake sciences for medicine and agriculture production, intentionally failing to adopt known ways to feed your people, industrialization of large regions of self sufficient rural communities etc. were just a few of the ways socialist countries ground their own populations into dust and bones when they needed to have fewer mouths to feed. It's unfortunate this history is not taught routinely for the scary reality it must have been for these people.
That's overly simplistic. Most major tax bills are proposals by the White House sent to Congress. Bush proposed his signature tax cuts. As did Reagan.
Zimbabwe? There's probably plenty of others.
And how are the Democrats sociopaths anyway? Just because they want to take money you earn, and spend it on others doesn't make them bad. I know it's annoying having money taken from you for silly social projects but that's the price of living in a society.
Their obsession with sucking up to Hollywood is quite annoying though. All those laws protecting media companies and persecuting civilians, plus the fact the they dangle "free-trade" agreements in front of other countries to get the same laws written - I'll agree that that is sociopathic. I'd say the Republicans are probably slightly more into arguing Jesus approves of their policies than the Dems, but you'll hear Obama talk about "God", "faith" and other bullshit all the time.
Republicans don't believe this. They believe tax cuts to the rich will bring more money to the rich. They don't care that money to the poor and middle class is more effective, because the rich have almost no chance of being truly hurt by the recession. All recession means to them is lower relative labor costs and lower sales which they can ride out by firing people.
This is also leads to such a weird turn of phrase as "Causing pain" for austerity measures that wreck people's lives. At the very most, the rich feel a bit of heartache out of sympathy.
Play Command HQ online
Survival of the fittest. The government does not owe me or anyone else a single thing. Stay out of my business. I have been unemployed for 8 months without insurance and I do not blame anyone but myself. Stop being a leech on society and provide for yourself. I bet you believe that the government "owes" you a retirement also? If you do not save enough for your retirement, then you don't deserve to retire. The government does not owe you a retirement or social security. Start saving for your own damn retirement and give back your free obama phone.
Virgil Goode, the jackass who assumed Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, was some kind of foreigner? The one who tried making a law stopping him from taking the Oath of office on a Quran, and insisted that all Americans use a bible? He decided to run for president?
ANY well-run business will have EXTRA LABOR CAPACITY.
If EVERY PERSON in your company is working FLAT OUT, ALL THE TIME, then there is NO WAY to respond to unforseen circumstances.
YOUR company would TURN DOWN new business because you are TOO BUSY.
It is expensive because it is essentially guaranteed coverage. The company I worked for (50 employees) from 1998 to 2010 tried to set a cap at $10,000 per employee per year. At first, it was no problem even with a low deductible policy, by 2007, they had to go to a $5000 deductible and by 2010 they raised the cap to $12,000 per year and kept the 5000/10000 deductible. My wife is on guaranteed coverage now because she has Mild Gastritis, treatable with OTC medicines and a slightly painful shoulder, possibly from a lousy Rotator Cuff repair, that needs cortisone shots 3 or 4 times a year at approximately $200 per visit. "Normal" ins for her is around $400/mo. and guaranteed coverage is almost $900. Except for the year of the surgery, she has never met the deductible but still, is deemed unsuitable for "normal" coverage.
You should try listening to Japs speak. They completely crap out about halfway through the sentence and then release the rest in a quick burst. It's terrible.
As a percentage of income (which is all that matters in this case), the middle class family by far.
I guess we have it on your authority then that personal liberty is overrated and limited government is a horror? Yep.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I've love to see someone challenge Romney on the concept of tax cuts for the rich leading to Job creation.
Frankly, anyone who fails to understand how stealing less from productive people leads to more productivity isn't just failing Economics 101, it's amazing that this person manages to put his pants on in the morning! Your political masters had to build a very intricate religion in order to prevent you from seeing the absolutely obvious... Every single pixel of human economic history confirms that the moral argument for free markets is the practical argument as well!
Let me explain in a way that even a 4-year-old could understand it. You have a lemonade stand A, and a lemonade stand B. Lemonade stand A charges $1.15 for a glass of lemonade. Lemonade stand B charges $0.42 for an identical (or even slightly better) glass of lemonade. Which one do you prefer? B? Well, guess what - in an analogy to real life, you've just picked Hong Kong over New York City as a place to start the next Pfizer or IBM!
USA's economic freedom (and thus its competitiveness to retain its brains and capital, and to attract more from abroad) has has experienced rapid decline during the Obama administration. If he is reelected, it is likely to fall further. In spite of all his political vagueness, Romney is clearly a lesser evil in that regard. A few more years of Obama means more lemonade stands offering a better deal than USA, which means Uncle Sam's lemonade simply won't sell.
Productive people don't just create jobs, they create products and services that separate us from cavemen, as well the investment opportunities that give people an incentive to save. They are the pillars of civilization, paying for things like security and scientific research. There is a reason why USA became rich, and why those rich people you want to rob are here in the first place - USA used to be the most economically free country in the world at that time, but it is no longer. The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of competent people to tax!
--libman
I don't understand why something like the occupy wall street caught on and got a lot of traction, but we are still stuck with "lesser of the two evils" bipartisan politics type stuff. There are people like Johnson out there who, if given a chance, may do good or just may be as good as either side of the same coin that is currently in effect...
Look give Romney his tax cut, he in turn will hire extra workers (Miguel the gardener, Juanita the cleaner).
They in turn will spend their money on Tacos at Taco Bell, who will build more Taco Bells stimulating the property market.
Not only that, there's indirect benefits too! CEO Romney, refreshed from his new garden will be in a better mood to hire more people in the USA. These are better jobs too, an off shoring manager, an outsource expert, import manager bob.
So it's a win win situation. Quit complaining, just give him his tax cut.
Oh it works perfectly with trickling down the taxes to the general population.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
would help get better discount from labs..
why do you think "Health care can form a significant part of a country's economy. In 2008, the health care industry consumed an average of 9.0 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) across the most developed OECD countries.[2] The United States (16.0%), France (11.2%), and Switzerland (10.7%) were the top three spenders." france and germany spend less and get an overall better system (life expectancy) then the US.
The said "US republican" (i don't recognize them as republicans, but rich greedy and selfish people whom know nothing of the life of joe average, but pretend to tell him who to vote), the said "US republican" just tell you the Wealthiest nation in the world can't afford what france or germany can afford !
Stop enslavement, rich entrepreneurial people at work and gov to let the system work smoothly for all to benefits of it, and at first THEIR PEOPLE !
said "US republican" tell you, you can spend billions if not trillions on a war for bullshit WMD in iraq (which didn't exist at time of the war), but can't afford to improve their overall healthcare system.. bullshit again ! but i guess that's all they have to offer
Co-ops can. Govts can. Neighbours and family can.
This is rather a side issue anyway. The oversimplified main point is that businesses don't create jobs, demand does.
If I wanted rabidly extreme one-side political rants, I'd go to Reddit.
It's only a matter of time before a better, more informed, less rabid social cummunity arises -- when that happens, this place will be gone.
Wow, that card is getting really played out by now.
Except, of course, that the data confirms the Keynseian approach, and contradicts the "Republican" economic model. Stimulus spending clearly boosts a troubled economy, while the tax cuts for the rich don't. It's easy to see why, when you follow the money.
If you give a rich person a tax break when the economy is down, they (primarily) save it for later, because they want to insulate themselves from the economic uncertainty, so it doesn't enter the economy. Note that, in practice, low top marginal tax rates discourage investment in business, because the executives can suck the money out of the business and keep almost all of it. High top marginal tax rates, in real life, discourage executives from paying themselves extremely high salaries, so they invest in their business and pay their employees better. The result of the decreasing top marginal tax rate since the 1970s has been, in real terms, for the executive salaries to skyrocket, while worker salaries have dropped over time, while the reverse was true when the top marginal tax rates were higher. Since 80 years of data confirms that cutting taxes on the top incomes is bad for the economy as a whole, there's not much reason that *this time* it'll work out better.
If you hire a bunch of construction workers to work on roads and bridges, those people use their salaries to pay rent/mortgages, buy food, etc., so all of the money immediately circulates into the economy. And, of course, you have more/better roads and bridges, which broadly boosts the economy because people can get to work, shop, etc. Similarly, hiring police and teachers, etc., all goes straight into the economy, as well as providing services of value to society. And those consumers with jobs create demand that drives additional business.
And, for what it's worth, 80 years of data supports the Keynesian economic model - governments should save money (e.g. under Clinton) so that they can spend more money (e.g. under Bush and Obama) when the economy turns down, evening out the economic booms and busts. Whenever country try the opposite (spend more money when the economy is strong, and cut spending when the economy is weak) it invariably turns out to (1) wipe out savings (Bush Jr), and (2) eaggerate the boom/bust cycle, making recessions worse/longer (e.g. the 1930s, Austerity in the EU now).
That's why the concensus of economists before the stimulus was passed was that there needed to be more government spending (average 2x the stimulus) and that it should be focused on the most effective types of spending (direct hiring, infrastructure). Unfortunately, politics in the US is such that the stimulus spending was 1/2 what economists said was needed, and 1/2 of that was wasted on tax breaks that didn't boost the economy, so the stimulus was, in effect, 1/4th what economic models said was needed, causing the recession to be deeper, and drag on longer, than it should have.
It could have been worse - the same kind of "austerity" thinking took stronger hold in Europe, where it did more damage.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Well, you could decrease taxes (slightly) by merely reducing the rate of increase in spending.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Why do Americans even bother to continue with the illusion that their sham elections actually result in any real change.
There is no substantive difference between the Republican/Democrat factions of the ruling junta.
I was going to predict that in this slashdot discussion, roman_mir would recite his religious mantras using multiple accounts while ignoring the reality of the situation entirely. Looks like I win.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There's a more fundamental reason why giving a tax break to a rich person doesn't result in money entering the economy in the way it does if you give the money to poor people:
- If I earn $250k a year and have say $400k in the bank, then an additional say $30k from a tax break makes no material difference to my life. I could *already afford everything I needed*
- If I earn $25k a year and have say $4k in the bank, then an additional say $3k from a tax break makes a huge material difference to my life. I can now afford things I really need -- more food, better housing, more clothes, etc etc.
The story of a misogynist looking for a token woman.... Sad.
On the other hand, the reponse on tumblr made it all worthwhile:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0o62KulO1rj8amio1_1280.jpg
And yes, I know the Mormons haven't preached polygamy for a very long time, but it's still funny.
I'm confused by your comment. First you say you want someone to challenge Romney's plan to give tax cuts to the rich (which he has repeatedly stated he doesn't want to do).
Then you say you want tax cuts for the middle class. Which Romney has repeatedly stated he does want to do.
Your last line then says this is Romney's ideology, which it is. But you end by saying you want to see him "nailed...on the subject".
So what exactly do you want Romney challenged on?
OBAMA: Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they [...] aren't just representatives of the United States, they are *MY* representatives.
Phrased that way because Obama thinks he's bigger than the United States. A real president would have reversed the two "not just my reps, they're US reps". He's not a president, he's a tyrant in the making.
If the Keynseian approach worked:
1) the draw down of the military post-WWII would've driven the country into recession
2) "saving" money from ending wars, and using that money to say, pay off debt, would drive the country into recession
Keynes got it right about one thing - the inability to lower prices/wages causes a great deal of our economic problems: instead of adjusting quickly to new economic realities, we adjust poorly. Some of this is just human nature (a business who adjusts to economic conditions by lowering wages will end up losing productivity from employees as they feel disgruntled, and of course people have a hard time selling things for less than they bought them for, simply on an emotional level), but regardless of the cause, these are the "rough spots" of economic cycles we need to deal with.
The assertion that government expenditure is the proper way to respond to sticky prices is a dangerous misperception of reality, based in the Broken Window Fallacy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs
In the end, we have two competing classes of people - borrowers and savers. Savers want to lend their money to borrowers to grow it reliably. Borrowers want to borrow money from savers because they bet they can grow it more than they'll have to repay. But monetary policy cannot be neutral in this matter -> inflation screws savers, making them less willing to lend, and deflation screws borrowers, driving them to bankruptcy which screws savers too.
As it stands, the U.S. federal government is a massive debtor, and so it's no surprise that it's incentive is to inflate the currency, destroy the power of the dollar, and pay off its debt with cheaper greenbacks. Unfortunately, what is in the self-interest of the U.S. government is something that retards economic activity, and makes savers less willing to invest.
Honestly, if liberals truly believed in Keynesian economics, they'd militarize the entire nation, and hire everyone as a military contractor. Increased defense spending would be seen as economic stimulus, rather than some sort of black hole for money. I think what the liberals don't quite realize is the same way they see galavanting around the world with M-16s and F-22s as wasteful, fiscal conservatives think the same thing about various welfare and entitlement programs.
In the "Guns, Butter, Jobs" equation, the Keynesian model would suggest that guns means more jobs means more people can afford their own butter.
Money in the bank isn't removed from the economy - it's what banking institutions use to lend to borrowers and stimulate economic activity.
If you get an additional $30k, but don't need it to make a material difference to your life, that $30k sits in a bank, which can then lend to a small business who needs that $30k to invest in their store to create another say, 10 jobs. Or maybe that $30k sits in a mutual fund, which becomes an investment in a wide range of companies that now can create jobs. Unless you actually take that $30k and bury it in your backyard, it's working *somewhere*.
Now you can argue that $30k of spending on goods and services (10 people with $3k all making a material difference to their lives) is better than $30k of investment in companies and jobs, but I think that's an open question rather than a given.
The agents of the left, having already misappropriated the term 'liberal', have moved onto the term 'progressive'
Of course they are neither liberal in the classical sense of the word- spreading liberty (unless you mean sexual permissiveness and 'liberty' from the predictable consequences of ill considered acts), nor are they 'progressive'- not advancing the nation, but advocating policies that led to the European implosion we are watching.
Anyway, leftists will seek out a new label as soon as the old one is tarnished (Liberal being abandoned for Progressive nowadays)
You can apply whatever conceitful definition you wish to the current label of those of you on the left.
That label will in short order become a derisive term for those who wish to create a voting bloc by making folks dependent on the government.
As you've seen, I don't use liberal or progressive to describe the leftist, as the use of those terms implies things that aren't so. I wish my fellow right wingers ('liberals' in the classical sense) would abandon the label as well, and simply use 'leftist', 'socialist', or 'communist-lite', as these are accurate definitions using the actual meaning of those words.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Starting from 100 years ago
1912 Theodore Roosevelt 27.4%
1924 Robert M. La Follette 16.6%
1968 George Wallace ran 13.5%
1992 Ross Perot 18.9%
These are results of actual elections, not peek polling numbers that would get one into a debate. That list would be longer.
--Anon
Obama is a pretentious asshole.
Good luck to the USA in November, if you vote him back in, the fall of the USA will be complete well before he takes his vaunted Star Value home to reap the big bucks awaiting him on the Public Speaking Circuit (and the Talk Shows).
I see your point. Yes I agree, it's shocking that more Republicans aren't in Federal jails. We need a war on fraud or some such.
Only then can convicted felons who've served their time, fairly represent the Republican party.
And then the Libertarians come out to play.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
All of the liberal companies are having their HR departments scour their departments for "binders full of women" and getting rid of them. It is no longer politically correct to store employee information in binders. That is disrespectful to them, most especially to women.
Think of all the temp/part time jobs this has created!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I have no mod points, so wanted to say this is an exceptionally straightforward and sensible explanation. I tend to end up with a very similar analysis when I try to work through the issues. I was disappointed there aren't any rebuttals, because I'm bad at arguing with myself, and I'd like to hear counter-arguments to determine their merits.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I don't know what's funnier, the original link I posted or the fact that Romney's real link you posted is no more useful in understanding the real numbers.
You are putting too much thought into it. I never even read the link. I just wanted to fix the button.
But the Republicans have their own legions of mindless partisans.
Yes they do. But those partisans are not in control of every media facility for the entire U.S.
How many Republicans, after Obama's election, were suddenly shocked, shocked at the wasteful government spending and relentless attacks on our civil liberties...
Almost none? There was huge conservative outcry at the stimulus bills, and things like the Bridge To Nowhere.
But it didn't matter since even if they were ignoring those issues before, they were not avoiding writing columns in the New York Times about them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nice straw-man. It always annoys me to see people define what an opposing viewpoint holds. It is always skewed, and in this case, a pure fabrication.
Nice link. Now look at the source. Payed for by the DNC. Next time before go on a veiled bash of Romney, find an independent source.
For an average person, saving money is a sure-fire way to lose money - the interest rates are less than the cost of living. Not a wise suggestion. Only way is to invest, and I'm not so sure I'd do that either. May as well just spend it all.
Of course, this affects the rich, but the impact is much higher on an average person.
Everyone should be able to vote, felons included. How else do you change the system if not operating within the system gets you disbarred from participating int he system?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/budget
Also, here is Obama's Jobs Plan
http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobs
http://www.whitehouse.gov/jobs
Also, here is the Obama budget...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/budget
Will you guys let the Republican Voters now that I am having trouble viewing PBS after Mitt Romney made a statement of getting rid of PBS and FTA(Free To Air). PBS is part of an educational process for all ages. Can we really have a Democratic Process during voting season if we can't watch it on PBS?
to sending guns to mexican drug lords (operation Gunwalker)
Perhaps you should read this investigate journalism.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
To give you the brief version: the government did not send guns to Mexican drug lords. All the guns that "walked" across the border were bought by straw purchasers with their own cash from private businesses.
The ATF agents in question (the leader of which is a former Marine who got an award for taking down two violent gangs in Minneapolis) tried to identify the straw purchasers. When they went to prosecutors for an arrest warrant, the prosecutor would say "nope, you don't have enough probable cause" even though one of the guys bought $300,000 worth of guns in six months while on food stamps.
The guns that killed Brian Terry were purchased by a man name Jaime Avila in January 2010. By July 2010, the ATF agents had sent prosecutors the names of 20 straw purchasers, Avila among them. By December 2010, the prosecutors dropped Avila's name from the indictment due to lack of evidence. Later that month, Mr. Terry was murdered. Avila was arrested within 24 hours of Mr. Terry's murder.
:(){
The top 5% pay a little under 60% of income taxes. At least they have skin in the game. All the boo-hooing from the poor cause they have payroll taxes, well guess what, so does the top 5%. The difference is that they pay more into those social hammock programs then they will ever take out.
Mitt: I am going to lower taxes, grow the economy and shrink the government
Obama: I am going to raise taxes on the rich and let everyone else keep paying what they already pay but call it a tax cut, shrink the economy and grow the government
And, for what it's worth, 80 years of data supports the Keynesian economic model - governments should save money (e.g. under Clinton) so that they can spend more money (e.g. under Bush and Obama) when the economy turns down, evening out the economic booms and busts.
Governments "should" save money, but don't. Even under Clinton, for a short time we had a budget surplus but the magnitude of the surplus is much smaller than deficits we have run before and after. There's simply no political will to pay off the debt when times are good. Instead we make projections 10 years out and say "Oh wow we can spend much more money than we thought!" Look at this old article: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88866&page=1#.UH71_MV2xCc
President Clinton today projected that the United States will have a $1.9 trillion budget surplus over the next decade. He said the increase in the expected surplus means the government will be debt-free by 2010.
Funny huh?
It could have been worse - the same kind of "austerity" thinking took stronger hold in Europe, where it did more damage.
The good thing about austerity is it doesn't depend on projections. If you save money by cutting spending, that money is saved right now, not 10 years from now. Then later when the economy is doing well you can bring back the programs that were cut. In the end, the process is more fair and makes more sense to people. There's not much that upsets people more than when times are tough and then the governments picks certain groups to lavish with spending while everyone else suffers.
Entrepreneurship doesn't count for anything if your brilliant new idea doesn't have a block of consumers who have the disposable income. It doesn't matter how much someone wants something if they can't afford it.
But wait, there's more!
Imagine the total cost of R&D that it takes for e.g. LG to make a new flat-screen HDTV model. Probably in the millions, let's say $10m to make the math easy. Further, let's say that only the 10 richest people have enough disposable income to purchase these TVs. That means each of those TVs will be at least $1m just for the R&D, probably more for the associated components. With 10 people who have HDTV, do you think the cable company is going to even bother offering HD content? Maybe, if the wealthy are willing to pay thousands of dollars a month in service fees.
Now let's take a look at this example, but with a vibrant middle class that has tons of disposable income. Now let's say a million people have enough income to buy this flat screen TV. That means the R&D costs are amoritzed to $10/TV. And now that there are a million potential customers, the cable company is much more likely to offer HD content.
Without the middle class, you don't have economies of scale. And when you don't have economies of scale, there are a lot of technological innovations that will just not happen because there is no market, and even if there was a market economies of scale would lead to reduced prices. This example is seen all over the place, from the screws that are used to build products, to the plastic molds which enclose those products.
:(){
Um...one perfectly justified emergency hospital trip will blow right past your puny $10K cap.
Honestly, $10K in a year would be finincially painful, but if it didn't happen every year I could deal (maybe). It is for exceptional cases that go well past that which I need insurance for. So what you just described doesn't even constitute "insurance" in my book. I could do the same damn thing you're doing for myself by self-insuring with an IRA and some monthly deductions.
My main prediction was about inflation, did they talk about it? (I didn't watch).
Of course you didn't watch it, ron paul wasn't in it. You don't watch anything that doesn't have ron paul in it, or wasn't endorsed explicitly by him. It would be like asking David Koresh to read the Quaran.
Why would I care about an independent source when I want to bash Romney? And what was veiled about it? I thought it was pretty clear bashing, and pretty funny as well.
You're applying logic to the american public at large. That is an exercise doomed to failure
Which is actually above the poverty threshold, if that gives any idea how out of balance things are. For those who make enough to not qualify for any special programs and is on such a plan, you're losing an entire "living income" out of your paycheck.
Survival of the fittest. The government does not owe me or anyone else a single thing. Stay out of my business. I have been unemployed for 8 months without insurance and I do not blame anyone but myself. Stop being a leech on society and provide for yourself. I bet you believe that the government "owes" you a retirement also? If you do not save enough for your retirement, then you don't deserve to retire. The government does not owe you a retirement or social security. Start saving for your own damn retirement and give back your free obama phone.
You sound bitter; you should do something about that ... that said FTFY.
Considering that I paid into the Social Security system my entire life, you're damn right I expect something back. And I get very offended when anyone suggests that I'm asking for a hand out; what I expect is that a system that I supported be sorted out so that I'm going to get back what I was 'promised' in the end.
Believe me if I could save for my retirement I would, but right now I'm too concerned with keeping a (now rented rather than owned) roof over myself and my child's head and food on our table. I'm struggling to survive, and all 'trickle-down' is doing for me is raining poo on my head, weighing me down further.
Again, FTFY.
Obama and Romney are both corporate party scumbags, but Obama hasn't declared war with Iran which is a good job because if USA (and it's pet UK) went to war with Iran the global economy would be double fucked (oil price explosion), Romney is a sociopathic nutjob and I wouldn't put it past him to go to war with Iran, something Obama hasn't done and I don't think he will do.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Their obsession with sucking up to Hollywood is quite annoying though. All those laws protecting media companies and persecuting civilians...
Agreed. Fortunately, in the "lesser of two evils" list, being unable to get an unencrypted copy of some movie or song ranks pretty well near the bottom. And I say this as someone who detests the RIAA/MPAA.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
He is going to cut spending. Duh!
Campaign promises to the contrary are just lies.
Lying in this context is ethically justified.
You see, democracy is a shitty shitty system that allows shitty shitty thugs like Obama to bribe the mob with stolen loot. Lazy unprincipled idiots will always be in a majority. A political candidate running on a rational platform would only get around 10% of the vote. So, as a means of self-defense against socialist thuggery, we have the Republican Party, which attracts the more functional of the idiots by lying about things like: respect for religion, patriotism, and not really wanting to eventually drown the government in a bathtub.
If you didn't already know this, then you're one of the idiots.
If you want to vote for honest politicians, vote Libertarian.
If you want more mob rule, move to France.
--libman
Hum. You're kind of assuming that the bank holding the savings is in the same economy, rather than being in say Bermuda. And given that banks operate on a fractional reserve basis and have done forever, I'm not sure that there's much benefit to the economy in you lending another 30k to a bank. Spending the money is a much more direct method of stimulating economic activity.
Well, you can chop off, say, 10% of the 30k as a fractional reserve requirement, and still end up ahead of the game if the remaining 27k is being used to invest in profitable enterprises that create jobs. And of course, if you live somewhere like Kalifornia, you can chop off, say, 10% of each 3k given to ten people for sales tax on any goods and services spending :)
I still think that we've got an open question as to whether money invested in a company has a greater effect on economic growth than money spent by consumers. Yes, fractional reserve requirements will tinge the equation, as will sales taxes. Yes, money in Bermuda is more distant from our economy, but the same can be said for remittances sent back to home countries by recent immigrants. There are doubtless dozens of other minor factors that can come into play on either the "I spent my 30k investing in a gas station" or "I spent my 30k buying 5 used import cars", but I haven't seen it demonstrated that investment is quantitatively worse than direct spending.